Replace "homosexual" with "pedophile"
Why?? Homosexuals are consenting and sometimes loving adults. Pedophiles are predators in a relation that cannot be consensual.
In my view, homosexuality and pedophilia are both psychological disorders of unknown pathologies. The difference between the objects of disordered affections is mostly accidental (in the philosophical sense). Obviously, pedophilia is a much more serious problem because children cannot consent to sex with an adult. Look at it from the sufferer's standpoint, though. If the neurological manifestations and/or causes of pedophilia and homosexuality are similar (an empirically testable hypothesis), shouldn't they be treated similarly? Pedophiles and other sexual deviants are subject to arrest and conviction, but homosexuals are increasingly treated as just another expression of human diversity. I think there's a fundamental failure in logic in that disparity. I'm not advocating decriminalizing child abuse or criminalizing active homosexuality. However, I do not believe that we can just wave our hands and declare that homosexuality is "normal" simply because those affected by it can reciprocate each other's desires.
Kleptomania and criminal violence also wreak injury on others. That's what makes them crimes. I can't believe what a huge leap you're making.
You assume that homosexual activity does not wreak psychological and/or spiritual injury.
Do you have any gay family members or friends?
there is the notion of oral law/tradition. Not all that is binding need be recorded explicitly in Scripture.
Then it could be anything enough of you wanted it to be.
Is that English? 😉 You certainly aren't the first to suggest that belief in Sacred Tradition can lead to rationalization and justification of anything and everything. This might be true if it weren't for the fact that, at least in Catholicism/Orthodoxy, Tradition cannot contradict Scripture.
Do you believe I am a bigot?
I believe you have a visceral revulsion against homosexuality that you may be dressing up in religious clothing. Just the fact that you use the word "poisons" . . . A lot of people share that revulsion, but I wonder if it doesn't precede rather than issue from your devotion to your religion, and find welcome justification in the latter.
I won't deny finding homosexuality revolting. However, whether the revulsion came before the religious arguments is irrelevant. Revulsion or lack thereof on my, or anyone else's, part does not add or detract from the religious arguments against gay love. To say, "You find X's behavior revolting so your argument fails" is a logical fallacy.
"Bigot" is a name-calling word that doesn't have much meaning to me. A bigot to me would be someone who just reacts, doesn't think, and that's not you. (I think this is a matter of feeling, not thinking.)
I'm not sure I follow. Do you mean that my stance against homosexuality is due to some sort of affective immaturity? (Immaturity is a placeholder. I wrote and deleted a dozen words that failed to capture the impression I'm getting from you.)
Here's another interesting read: the series which begins here with this statement:
I'm going to argue that when sociomoral disgust/contamination structures the issue it is psychologically IMPOSSIBLE to both loathe the sin and love the sinner.
It's more thoughtful than polemical; I don't think you'll feel it is attacking or condemning your point of view. It might be worth blogging on.
I'll hopefully have time to read it soon.
From what you quote of Hogan and LeVoir, any nonprocreative act of love, including heterosexual, shades into sin.
Yes and no. A sexual act must, per se, be procreative. That is, it must be a procreative sort of act. Gay sex cannot be procreative. There is another factor, though. Sex is a marital act. The only suitable participants in a martial union are one man and one woman. The Church teaches that marriage, and therefore intercourse, must be unitive and procreative. Attention to either aspect should not be allowed to do violence to the other. For a much more thorough examination of human sexuality, I again suggest reading JPII's Love and Responsibility and Theology of the Body. Christopher West has written an excellent companion to the latter called Theology of the Body Explained.
Reproduction (creating in God's image) is the only thing that redeems sexual desire from the taint of sin. From one point of view that's a commendably stern and pure worldview — which is why it's been honored in the breach since time immemorial and bred long lines in front of the confessional :). It certainly assures that all who believe it will feel forever guilty and sinful. There were times in the history of the church when that was good business practice as well as good theology.
The Church does not teach that sex is dirty and must be made clean through reproduction, at least not anymore. Far from being sinful, sex is sacred and must be treated appropriately. Sexuality is a holy gift from God and a manifestation of how we are made in His image and likeness. Contrary to popular belief, the Church, unlike many Protestant denominations (which border on Manichaeism or Jansenism in how they regard sexuality), has a very high view of sex. For an excellent summary of Catholic sexual ethics in layman's terms, I whole-heartedly recommend Christopher West's Good News About Sex and Marriage, chapter 8 of which answers questions regarding the Church's teachings on homosexuality.